Why stevebee is wrong

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5721  Postby Scot Dutchy » Aug 16, 2013 7:20 am

Paul wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:Just like my "discussions" here, I do what I do for pure fun.


Looks like a clear admission to me.


Yep I got warned on another thread just for that and it was not even meant to be a serious one.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 73
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5722  Postby Newmark » Aug 16, 2013 9:41 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
theropod said:
Tell us.

Remember my discussion on groupthink? I can't imagine in any other venue where people communicate in plural pronouns. It's unique to evolution. "WE" think. Tell "US" "WE" understand that....
It's a clue about what evolution does to people. It removes their ability to think independently and objectively; to be skeptical and question. If you were truly all skeptics, you would not only question religion, but you would question evolution as well. But you don't and cannot as long as you think in groups.


Your powers of textual analysis has really opened my eyes! Now that know the marks of true evolutionism, I can easily spot it wherever it may hide. Just look at all the bastions of evilushion I've uncovered so far: "We the People", "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal", "Give us this day our daily bread", "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation", "the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself", "We are not amused". 'Cause if Steve can't imagine it, I'm we're sure it cannot be so.
User avatar
Newmark
 
Posts: 365
Age: 43
Male

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5723  Postby ElDiablo » Aug 16, 2013 11:31 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:Steve, I'm going to make this as short as possible: Your fantasy has failed, you're not going to make money on the evolution vs creationism debate, at least from anyone on this forum.

Time to go "invent" another money-making scheme. Bye! :cheers:


I came back to say adios myself. Cheers. :cheers: BTW, my object isn't to make money. On this venue, or any other. I really don't care how many books I sell, or if I make money. Just like my "discussions" here, I do what I do for pure fun. Also, I don't debate evolution vs. creation. That's your fantasy. Adios


Adios.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3128

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5724  Postby lucek » Aug 16, 2013 6:15 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis said:
Diddley squat?

:lol: I hope you're not in med school.

Thomas Eshuis said:
Translation, I cannot honestly answer your question so I'll attempt to dodge it by crying persecution.


I can't answer what IID is? :lol: Well, since I coined the term, I would say you're wrong. Sorry. It's just that I wouldn't waste the answer on someone who thinks every creationist who disagrees with him is a lying sack of shit. In my world, I wouldn't expect that kind of dialogue from a physician. Of course in yours, it doesn't mean diddley squat. I like my world better.

Steve do we have to go over the Quote function again? It's really quite nifty. You don't have to type it yourself or you know alter the content of a post just click on the quote button for the post you want to quote. For one it aromatically hyperlinks to the post and for another
Code: Select all
[quote][b]Thomas Eshuis[/b] said:
really???

Actually I guess we have to go over what a quote is as well.
Next time a creationist says, "Were you there to watch the big bang", say "Yes we are".
"Nutrition is a balancing act during the day, not a one-shot deal from a single meal or food.":Sciwoman
User avatar
lucek
 
Posts: 3641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5725  Postby lucek » Aug 16, 2013 6:32 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:Oldskeptic, you obviously have no absolute idea what Einstein's theory on the relationship between time and speed between an observer and the observed is, now do you. It would be a fascinating thing for you to learn, and by jove, the story is in my book! You're in luck! You will also learn many things you obviously don't know about, like protein synthesis, the formation of the universe, what might or might not have happened with the advent of the first proto cells. It would be a wonderful buy for you. I highly recommend it. Only 15 bucks!

So $15 for a vanity press book that essentially is going to be a rehash of every creationist argument but written by someone I can barely stand to read on this forum. I'll pass. Just doing some research, By chance is this book of yours paperback 84 pages and from Lulu?

But whatever moving on again as you have chosen to pass on my last request maybe you'd like to discus what the first protocells possibly looked like and about their possible predecessors?
Next time a creationist says, "Were you there to watch the big bang", say "Yes we are".
"Nutrition is a balancing act during the day, not a one-shot deal from a single meal or food.":Sciwoman
User avatar
lucek
 
Posts: 3641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5726  Postby stevebee92653 » Aug 16, 2013 7:03 pm

lucek said:
So $15 for a vanity press book that essentially is going to be a rehash of every creationist argument but written by someone I can barely stand to read on this forum. I'll pass. Just doing some research, By chance is this book of yours paperback 84 pages and from Lulu?

No.

lucek said;
But whatever moving on again as you have chosen to pass on my last request maybe you'd like to discus what the first protocells possibly looked like and about their possible predecessors?


If you have something even remotely interesting to say, I'll check back and respond. Otherwise, the adios sticks. The continual insignificant ragging is such a bore. I actually wrote a book. It's interesting to see how many ratskepers here, you included, who have never written anything except these in you arse comments here, continually rag on something they have never read and have no idea about it's contents, don't you think? I do have three chapters in my book on the beginning of life, protocells, and the beginning of multis. So wachout. I'm pretty much up on your subject choice. If you can barely stand to read my responses, why would you want to continue to torture yourself? Of all of your thread choices, why are you here? Fascinating and puzzling.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5727  Postby Rumraket » Aug 16, 2013 7:09 pm

Weren't you leaving? :coffee:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13242
Age: 42

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5728  Postby Scar » Aug 16, 2013 7:14 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:
lucek said:
So $15 for a vanity press book that essentially is going to be a rehash of every creationist argument but written by someone I can barely stand to read on this forum. I'll pass. Just doing some research, By chance is this book of yours paperback 84 pages and from Lulu?

No.

lucek said;
But whatever moving on again as you have chosen to pass on my last request maybe you'd like to discus what the first protocells possibly looked like and about their possible predecessors?


If you have something even remotely interesting to say, I'll check back and respond. Otherwise, the adios sticks. The continual insignificant ragging is such a bore. I actually wrote a book. It's interesting to see how many ratskepers here, you included, who have never written anything except these in you arse comments here, continually rag on something they have never read and have no idea about it's contents, don't you think? I do have three chapters in my book on the beginning of life, protocells, and the beginning of multis. So wachout. I'm pretty much up on your subject choice. If you can barely stand to read my responses, why would you want to continue to torture yourself? Of all of your thread choices, why are you here? Fascinating and puzzling.


You managed to bundle the lies and idiocy you spout into a full book. Congrats :lol:
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 36
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5729  Postby lucek » Aug 16, 2013 7:51 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:If you have something even remotely interesting to say, I'll check back and respond. Otherwise, the adios sticks. The continual insignificant ragging is such a bore. I actually wrote a book. It's interesting to see how many ratskepers here, you included, who have never written anything except these in you arse comments here, continually rag on something they have never read and have no idea about it's contents, don't you think? I do have three chapters in my book on the beginning of life, protocells, and the beginning of multis. So wachout. I'm pretty much up on your subject choice. If you can barely stand to read my responses, why would you want to continue to torture yourself? Of all of your thread choices, why are you here? Fascinating and puzzling.

OK so I ask for a discussion and you're response is wright something and if I feel like it I may respond. I guess I'll let you're audios stand too. Especially given I've got no starting point to go from. I mean where do I start to counter a claim that isn't being made. Go over the entire RNA world hypothesis?

As an armature author (published a book and several sort pieces and working on so many more) I have to ask why you think publishing is such a big deal. Does the format change the content?
Next time a creationist says, "Were you there to watch the big bang", say "Yes we are".
"Nutrition is a balancing act during the day, not a one-shot deal from a single meal or food.":Sciwoman
User avatar
lucek
 
Posts: 3641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5730  Postby Onyx8 » Aug 16, 2013 10:20 pm


!
GENERAL MODNOTE
Thread locked for review.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 66
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5731  Postby Onyx8 » Sep 01, 2013 5:20 am


!
MODNOTE
stevebee92653,

In this post you made an inflammatory/provocative post.

And in this post you made an inflammatory/provocative post.

Inflammatory/provocative posts are not allowed by the FUA.

Therefore you are being awarded a warning, in the future please read and stay within the FUA to avoid further sanctions.


Please do not discuss this modnote or moderation in this thread as it is off-topic. If you need clarification or want to appeal this decision, please PM me or a senior moderator.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 66
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5732  Postby ADParker » Sep 01, 2013 8:17 am

Well stevebee92653's book is out:

Evo-illusion: Why IID Trumps ID and Evolution. Self published of course.

I note that it has a chapter on Population paradox, which is a hoot on his blog! :lol:

Nothing of any note in the twenty pages available on the Amazon page, just puffed up self-promotion stuff about his "journey to evolutionism and then his 'amazing' discovery of the T Rex arms.
And sorry; no indication at all on what this "IID" thing is supposed to mean on the back cover either. Why would anyone buy a book that argues for something without any clue as to what it is arguing for?

Trawling through the index however reveals this:
"ingenious invention and design (IID), 53, 68, 83-84, 109, 111, 185, 251-254, 257"
:roll:
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 51
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5733  Postby Rumraket » Sep 01, 2013 9:20 am

ADParker wrote:Well stevebee92653's book is out:

Evo-illusion: Why IID Trumps ID and Evolution. Self published of course.

I note that it has a chapter on Population paradox, which is a hoot on his blog! :lol:

Nothing of any note in the twenty pages available on the Amazon page, just puffed up self-promotion stuff about his "journey to evolutionism and then his 'amazing' discovery of the T Rex arms.
And sorry; no indication at all on what this "IID" thing is supposed to mean on the back cover either. Why would anyone buy a book that argues for something without any clue as to what it is arguing for?

Trawling through the index however reveals this:
"ingenious invention and design (IID), 53, 68, 83-84, 109, 111, 185, 251-254, 257"
:roll:

:picard:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13242
Age: 42

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5734  Postby lucek » Sep 01, 2013 10:13 am

I think we also have a new alias for Steve. Karsten Pultz. Either that or someone bought the book in the first week of publication loved it so much that they made a new amazon account and wrote a glowing 5/5 review for it.
Next time a creationist says, "Were you there to watch the big bang", say "Yes we are".
"Nutrition is a balancing act during the day, not a one-shot deal from a single meal or food.":Sciwoman
User avatar
lucek
 
Posts: 3641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5735  Postby ElDiablo » Sep 01, 2013 12:38 pm

I like this part in the About the Author section.
The courses he took at USC were more than enough to provide him with a master's degree in biological sciences.
http://www.amazon.com/Evo-illusion-Why-IID-Trumps-Evolution/dp/1483661660/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378020978&sr=1-1

Appeal to authority? It's an interesting way to say, I don't have a degree in the biological sciences but I've read enough to be an authority on the subject.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3128

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5736  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 01, 2013 12:47 pm

ElDiablo wrote:I like this part in the About the Author section.
The courses he took at USC were more than enough to provide him with a master's degree in biological sciences.
http://www.amazon.com/Evo-illusion-Why-IID-Trumps-Evolution/dp/1483661660/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378020978&sr=1-1

Appeal to authority? It's an interesting way to say, I don't have a degree in the biological sciences but I've read enough to be an authority on the subject.

Indeed. One would wonder why, if his claim is correct, he wasn't awarded said degree....
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 33
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5737  Postby tolman » Sep 01, 2013 12:58 pm

ElDiablo wrote:I like this part in the About the Author section.
The courses he took at USC were more than enough to provide him with a master's degree in biological sciences.

It's interesting in that it does seem like the typical creationist hypocritical appeal to scientific respectability while viciously attacking critics as being overeducated and brainwashed.

It's always some 'respected academic' (whose colleagues despair of them, assuming they are actually at some accredited institution) or NASA scientist (a briefly-employed lab assistant) supposedly overturning the fundamentals of biology which are defended by the evil book-learned scientific establishment.

But I guess it will maybe impress the miseducated and morons and who are the only likely buyers of this book of unadulterated shite.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5738  Postby ElDiablo » Sep 01, 2013 1:19 pm

From the book.
Regarding the human skin and evolution.
http://www.amazon.com/Evo-illusion-Why-IID-Trumps-Evolution/dp/1483661660/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378020978&sr=1-1

Evolution should have given mankind a skin covering that would save us from the extremes of weather. But instead it gave us characteristics that have nothing to do with survivability.


He questions why evolution hasn't designed humans better for the environment. Another fine example of a misunderstanding of a very fundamental aspect of evolution.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3128

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5739  Postby tolman » Sep 01, 2013 4:07 pm

ElDiablo wrote:He questions why evolution hasn't designed humans better for the environment. Another fine example of a misunderstanding of a very fundamental aspect of evolution.


'misunderstanding' -> 'deliberate, shitty, self-serving (if entirely predictable) misrepresentation'

And I say deliberate since someone who actually had studied the relevant aspects of biology would know it was simply bare-faced lying to claim that humans should have evolved skin to cope directly with all the extremes of climate throughout the world.

But I suppose in the minds of some people, bare-faced lying in the hopes of making money and/or deceiving people is OK.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5740  Postby lucek » Sep 01, 2013 6:42 pm

I love the part where he explained that he came from a scientifically illiterate home and had major creationist influences in his life he managed to go to college and ended up agreeing with what he was taught as a kid. (pg. 14)

It's also kinda interesting how pages were removed. The majority are there. Typically in such cases a chapter or 2 are given unabridged. Not 1 page missing every once in a while.
Next time a creationist says, "Were you there to watch the big bang", say "Yes we are".
"Nutrition is a balancing act during the day, not a one-shot deal from a single meal or food.":Sciwoman
User avatar
lucek
 
Posts: 3641

United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron